What boardgames have you played recently?

[Steven Pleva]

Spencer, I beg to differ. Next time we're at a tourney together let's get a game together. Settler's is by no means a crap game, and if you think its always easy to win, I'd suggest you try playing some better players.

I prefer the advanced version of Cities and Knights, but even the base game played at a high level is a very competitive challenge.

JT

I agree with Jim here. Cities and Knights can become quite the furball....

Steve

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Spencer, I beg to differ. Next time we're at a tourney together let's get a game together. Settler's is by no means a crap game, and if you think its always easy to win, I'd suggest you try playing some better players.

I prefer the advanced version of Cities and Knights, but even the base game played at a high level is a very competitive challenge.

JT

I agree with Jim here. Cities and Knights can become quite the furball....

Steve

We played Settlers to death back in college. The old brown box/photo graphics 1st and 2nd Editions (2nd came with white, black, orange and purple pieces to expand from 5-8 and rules for 5-6 and 7-8 player layouts). We also eventually had Seafarers. Frankly, I thought Seafarers added nothing of any real value (and it had the ugly, ugly graphics that I think they're still using a variant of). We'd all graduated by the time Cities and Knights came out and the post-college gaming group I was in was as sick of Settlers as I was so we never played it. The game I played a couple weeks ago was with college friends in a fit of nostalgia. The fact that I won easily was mostly due to tilted dice, a magically coming-together longest road and a very timely library card draw. Not bad opponents, just a tilted game.

The base game is, well, it's OK. I respect its place in Euro history and admire the fact that many gamers enjoy it and non-gamers usually can learn it and enjoy it, too. The main problem I have is that if you're playing with "max players," i.e. 4,6 or 8 depending on the layout, at least one (typically two in the case of 8-player) player will have virtually no chance of winning within a few turns due to being cut off. And once you get the rhythms of what's valuable when, it's largely luck, hard to be too clever in the deal-making when what everyone's doing is really pretty transparent if you're paying attention. The first few turns' rolls become paramount... <shrug> Crap was too strong, but I'm well over it. Nostalgia will probably srike in another five years.

S

 

[Fort]

I agree with Jim here. Cities and Knights can become quite the furball....

Steve

I gotta agree with Spence...it's crap!
I picked a copy up at the Origins or Gencon...don't remember which...where it was released, and on the advice of Rex Martin. It was fun the first time or twenty, but I got tired of it pretty darned quickly.
I've never played Cities and Knights.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I gotta agree with Spence...it's crap!
I picked a copy up at the Origins or Gencon...don't remember which...where it was released, and on the advice of Rex Martin. It was fun the first time or twenty, but I got tired of it pretty darned quickly.
I've never played Cities and Knights.

Yeah, the bold.

I am curious...what does Cities & Knights add?

S

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

An additional thought... Andy (aiabx) and I were talking about Euros the other day and when I was expressing my bafflement at folks who play a lot of Euros and have a "I played it twice, that made it worth my $50" attitude, he said "well, a lot of Euro players view games the way we view scenarios." I hadn't ever thought of it in those terms before, but when I thought about my most Euro-loving friends, it tracks. That is decidedly not me. I like games that can be played, played, played, played, played, played and played and still be revealing things to the players. This is why I like ASL and have almost no use for other war games generally. It's why the other games I like best are backgammon, poker, Go (theoretically, I haven't done nearly enough with it) and cribbage. Each has layers and depths that continue to reveal themselves. Settlers runs out fairly quickly.

S

 

[RobZagnut]

We played Settlers to death back in college. The old brown box/photo graphics 1st and 2nd Editions (2nd came with white, black, orange and purple pieces to expand from 5-8 and rules for 5-6 and 7-8 player layouts). We also eventually had Seafarers. Frankly, I thought Seafarers added nothing of any real value (and it had the ugly, ugly graphics that I think they're still using a variant of). We'd all graduated by the time Cities and Knights came out and the post-college gaming group I was in was as sick of Settlers as I was so we never played it. The game I played a couple weeks ago was with college friends in a fit of nostalgia. The fact that I won easily was mostly due to tilted dice, a magically coming-together longest road and a very timely library card draw. Not bad opponents, just a tilted game.

The base game is, well, it's OK. I respect its place in Euro history and admire the fact that many gamers enjoy it and non-gamers usually can learn it and enjoy it, too. The main problem I have is that if you're playing with "max players," i.e. 4,6 or 8 depending on the layout, at least one (typically two in the case of 8-player) player will have virtually no chance of winning within a few turns due to being cut off. And once you get the rhythms of what's valuable when, it's largely luck, hard to be too clever in the deal-making when what everyone's doing is really pretty transparent if you're paying attention. The first few turns' rolls become paramount... <shrug> Crap was too strong, but I'm well over it. Nostalgia will probably srike in another five years.

S

I agree with Spence. I had the same two Mayfair versions and would play Big Island or Peanut Island with 7-8 players. Problem was that it got too popular and thats what everyone wanted to play while I got sick of it. The only way I would play would be to add variants like Seafarers, Cities and Knights, that big book of expansions, Starfarers, Stone Age of Catan, etc, because I couldn't stand the regular game any more. Still can't. But if I want to hook a new gamer in euro gaming, Settlers is the game I pull out.

 

[Fort]

An additional thought... Andy (aiabx) and I were talking about Euros the other day and when I was expressing my bafflement at folks who play a lot of Euros and have a "I played it twice, that made it worth my $50" attitude, he said "well, a lot of Euro players view games the way we view scenarios." I hadn't ever thought of it in those terms before, but when I thought about my most Euro-loving friends, it tracks. That is decidedly not me. I like games that can be played, played, played, played, played, played and played and still be revealing things to the players. This is why I like ASL and have almost no use for other war games generally. It's why the other games I like best are backgammon, poker, Go (theoretically, I haven't done nearly enough with it) and cribbage. Each has layers and depths that continue to reveal themselves. Settlers runs out fairly quickly.

S

I generally like the games you listed, except for Backgammon...once you learn the strategy it's pretty much a game of luck. I also enjoy many other wargames than ASL. There's still a lot of mileage left in many of them.

 

[RobZagnut]

An additional thought... Andy (aiabx) and I were talking about Euros the other day and when I was expressing my bafflement at folks who play a lot of Euros and have a "I played it twice, that made it worth my $50" attitude, he said "well, a lot of Euro players view games the way we view scenarios." I hadn't ever thought of it in those terms before, but when I thought about my most Euro-loving friends, it tracks. That is decidedly not me. I like games that can be played, played, played, played, played, played and played and still be revealing things to the players. This is why I like ASL and have almost no use for other war games generally. It's why the other games I like best are backgammon, poker, Go (theoretically, I haven't done nearly enough with it) and cribbage. Each has layers and depths that continue to reveal themselves. Settlers runs out fairly quickly.

S

I keep buying and playing euros hoping to find a great one, then we play the pants off it. The ones we've discovered that are most excellent for my group of friends are:

Goa
Age of Empires III
Puerto Rico
Stone Age
Citadels
Race for the Galaxy
Le Harve

 

[James Taylor]

You guys sound like Bishop on ASL, "Its all about the luck."

Try playing Settlers online for a while-- you will encounter some VERY good players who play Catan like we play ASL. *Somehow* they manage to win consistently more than they lose despite the luck factor. :hmmm:

I watched a good portion of the Settlers finals at GenCon, (4 day tournament, with multiple playings for advancement; prize was a trip to Essen for world championships). The level of play was very high, and the game was very close. Probably 3 of the 4 players would have won on the last round, and the other player was only 2 plays away from winning.

I'll grant that luck may have a bigger impact on an individual game of Settlers than in ASL, but you are less likely to encounter a *dog* scenario in Settlers.

I'm not saying Settlers should replace ASL, but *crap* is WAY off base. The mechanics of the game are outstanding, and for its level of complexity it is the bees knees IMHO.

Cities and Knights provides the ability to reel in a leader. You will frequently see come from behind wins as being the leader at a certain point can be a real detriment. I like it because the additional complexity of the game takes it to a new depth for me.

JT

 

[Steven Pleva]

I generally like the games you listed, except for Backgammon...once you learn the strategy it's pretty much a game of luck. I also enjoy many other wargames than ASL. There's still a lot of mileage left in many of them.

Then why do they have rankings like Chess and the top players win again and again? Backgammon is a game of skill like ASL where you have to manage the risk/reward. Sure, an occasional match will get hijacked by the dice, but that is the exception and not the rule...

Steve

 

[Count_Zero]

I agree with Spence. I had the same two Mayfair versions and would play Big Island or Peanut Island with 7-8 players. Problem was that it got too popular and thats what everyone wanted to play while I got sick of it. The only way I would play would be to add variants like Seafarers, Cities and Knights, that big book of expansions, Starfarers, Stone Age of Catan, etc, because I couldn't stand the regular game any more. Still can't. But if I want to hook a new gamer in euro gaming, Settlers is the game I pull out.

THIS is your problem. Quit pulling out Settlers and pull out ASL. It's in Europe. That makes it a Euro-game, doesn't it?:devious::laugh:

 

[Tater]

Empires in Arms

 

[wrongway149]

An additional thought... Andy (aiabx) and I were talking about Euros the other day and when I was expressing my bafflement at folks who play a lot of Euros and have a "I played it twice, that made it worth my $50" attitude,S

Too many Euros that I've played once seemed like I had played them before. Score the board, get your payout then score around the track or some variant of all that. I'll play one every now and then, but I don't think I will buy many more, if any.

 

[Fort]

Then why do they have rankings like Chess and the top players win again and again? Backgammon is a game of skill like ASL where you have to manage the risk/reward. Sure, an occasional match will get hijacked by the dice, but that is the exception and not the rule...

Steve

I never said it had NO skill...you take what the dice give you and make your best play. There is an element of luck in Backgammon...but, I almost never lose Backgammon when I play...and I have lost to people I am teaching because of wild swings of the dice..it's rare, but it can happen. When you take two players of equal skill levels in Backgammon, the dice are the determining factor....always.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I never said it had NO skill...you take what the dice give you and make your best play. There is an element of luck in Backgammon...but, I almost never lose Backgammon when I play...and I have lost to people I am teaching because of wild swings of the dice..it's rare, but it can happen. When you take two players of equal skill levels in Backgammon, the dice are the determining factor....always.

Do you play with clock and doubling cube? That's a lot of the game at the top level.

I'm not saying I'm an expert (I'm not), I just enjoy it. It's the risk management and math... :yummy:

S

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Too many Euros that I've played once seemed like I had played them before. Score the board, get your payout then score around the track or some variant of all that. I'll play one every now and then, but I don't think I will buy many more, if any.

Yep. I am actually not a big Euro fan for this among other reasons. The other major peeve is how many are shoehorned into being 2-6 player games when they really only work with 3 or 4 (or any of several mathematical variations of this problem).

S

 

[Steven Pleva]

I never said it had NO skill...you take what the dice give you and make your best play. There is an element of luck in Backgammon...but, I almost never lose Backgammon when I play...and I have lost to people I am teaching because of wild swings of the dice..it's rare, but it can happen. When you take two players of equal skill levels in Backgammon, the dice are the determining factor....always.

The doubling cube mitigates the luck greatly. You never play one game to decide anything, it is always a match to some set number of points...

Steve

 

[RobZagnut]

Too many Euros that I've played once seemed like I had played them before. Score the board, get your payout then score around the track or some variant of all that. I'll play one every now and then, but I don't think I will buy many more, if any.

I've got about 400+ euro games. Many are as you describe, but once in a while you come across a real gem that is different than anything you've played before. To me it's worth buying and playing 9-10 games until you find that ONE. The exploration for the one is half the fun as each is new, different and exciting. The other half is playing the newly found gems over and over, and then if it has an expansion that's even better.

Lately, it's been Puerto Rico with the new Buildings and Nobles expansion. The combination of those two expansion keeps the orginal game in place, but really changes the strategy of what roles and buildings work together. And since at game start we pick buildings one at a time starting with the first player, the buildings change from game to game. Highly recommneded if you like PR, but haven't played it in a while, because it got stale. The same with Race for the Galaxy and it's first two expansions.

I'm a ASLer, I LOVE expansions.

 

[Victor]

High recommend for the beer and pretzel game Who Stole Ed's Pants? Tiny game packs goofy humor, surprising complexity, and of course some luck, all into a small box with a small price tag. Even Euro naysayers will find this one amusing for at least 20 some-odd playings.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2567/who-stole-eds-pants

Ignore the beeotching about not understanding the rules on BGG, those people clearly would never consume ASL and balk at anything more complicated than Candyland.

 

[Markdv5208]

Railways of the World....very impressed. OF COURSE, with 4 of us playing, I was 4th of 4....for 2 games (I'm usually bad at a game the first 2 or so playings)

Oh, and SETTLERS-GREATER CATAN for 18 points.

Mark DV
Ada, MI